Local overreach?

Thursday

Three local news items from earlier this month deserve a second look, as they provide cautionary tales about what can happen when public servants forget the rules that should guide them.

In one case, a superintendent used access to parent and faculty email addresses to send a message that appeared to promote two sitting members of the local school committee in the run-up to an election.

In another, a sitting school committee member asked town employees to email a reminder that he was running for office.

And finally, a pair of selectmen found themselves violating the Bourne town charter after they wrote a letter of apology to voters for confusion during a recent town meeting, but failed to indicate that the letter came only from the two of them and not the entire board.

In all three cases — the first involving Mashpee Schools Superintendent Patricia DeBoer, another connected to Mashpee School Committee member George Schmidt III, and the last associated with Bourne Selectmen Donald Pickard and Judy Conron — officials claim that they did not mean to provide false impressions. But in the world of politics, as is the case in many other aspects of our lives, intention is only part of the equation in terms of responsibility, and an appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as the actual act itself.

In Bourne, it appears that Pickard and Conron’s hearts were in the right place when they decided to write a letter to the editor regarding a special town meeting that took place on March 26. Specifically, they apologized for a warrant article designed to ban the retail sales of marijuana within the town’s borders. One part of the pair’s letter reads, “For the board of selectmen’s part ...” and another starts with “As your elected leaders we apologize for the confusion ... ” In both cases, the wording certainly suggests that they were speaking on behalf of the entire board rather than just for themselves.

The Bourne Charter Compliance Committee found that both Pickard and Conron were in violation of the charter, but did not mete out any punishment in the matter. For his part, Pickard sounded somewhat defiant about their actions, saying that they had “a right and a duty” to inform voters about the mishap. Perhaps, but a brief preface informing readers that they were speaking for themselves rather than on behalf of the board as a whole, or if they had simply run their letter by the whole board, it would have easily cleared up this matter before it became one.

In Mashpee, some are questioning DeBoer’s decision to email a social media post written by one school committee member that supported two fellow incumbents who were running for re-election. The message, which was sent out prior to the election, initially encourages people to vote, but it also heaps praise on Schmidt and Geoffrey Gorman, both of whom were returned to the school committee by voters on May 15. Although no formal complaint has been filed, DeBoer’s actions seem to be a clear violation of state campaign finance law, which bans the use of public resources for any political reason. In this case, the fact that DeBoer was not the author of the message is less important than the fact that she used a school email list to disseminate it.

For her part, DeBoer maintains that her intent in sending the email was simply to encourage people to get out and vote. She did, however, note that someone could read the message and come away with a different impression.

And in a separate incident that has also raised eyebrows, Schmidt apparently sent an email to Gail Wilson, the town’s human services director, asking her to send out an email to remind members of a town task force about the fact that an election was taking place and that he was a candidate. Wilson, apparently sensing that the request was fraught with potential problems, forwarded it along to Mashpee Town Manager Rodney Collins, who wisely told her not to follow Schmidt’s request.

It’s not as if instances of town employees or elected officials violating state ethics rules are anything new. Such violations happen periodically, as well-intentioned but perhaps under-informed individuals behave in a manner that in retrospect appears to cross a line. Although there is nothing immediately malicious in these three cases, taken in total it suggests a need for better training so that those entrusted with creating and enforcing rules do not somehow find themselves appearing to stand above those same regulations. The public must be able to trust those who are in positions of authority to do their job right, and it is therefore incumbent upon towns and the state to make sure ethics rules are explained, understood, and followed.

Editor's note: The original version of this opinion piece had incorrect information about Gail Wilson's title. It has been corrected.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.